Related

Extra! Magazine Editor Since 1990, Jim Naureckas has been the editor of Extra!, FAIR's monthly journal of media criticism. He is the co-author of The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s. He is also the co-manager of FAIR's website. He has worked as an investigative reporter for the newspaper In These Times, where he covered the Iran-Contra scandal, and was managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere, a newsletter on Latin America. Jim was born in Libertyville, Illinois, in 1964, and graduated from Stanford University in 1985 with a bachelor's degree in political science. Since 1997 he has been married to Janine Jackson, FAIR's program director. You can follow Jim on Twitter at @JNaureckas.

CNN president Jeff Zucker recently admitted that his news network doesn’t do much on climate change. But a few days later they managed to cover it–and you wish they hadn’t.

As he explained at an awards ceremony (Capital New York, 5/20/14):

Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention…but we haven’t figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way. When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.

But days after he said this, CNN did find a way to cover climate change on the program OutFront (5/21/14).

Giving climate change more attention should based on how CNN can “engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way” and making misleading claims of lack of interest in climate change on the audience’s part underlines how untrustworthy CNN can be for the public.

Supposing that there is a lack of interest in “those stories” on the audience’s part, CNN is in a position to change that. In fact, CNN has a responsibility to use the publicly granted ‘airwaves’ to generate interest in taking action to mitigate the present and future consequences of climate change in order to save the future of the human species; such horrendous consequences of climate change has almost unanimous consensus in the leading scientific journals and societies, but I’m sure CNN’s reporters have brought this to the network’s attention…correct?

Given the weight of of the consequences of climate change, it is utterly irresponsible of CNN to give a singular voice on a program concerning climate change through Ann Coulter, a person with a vast record of making irrational claims about climate change and global warming.

CNN says it doesn’t know how to cover climate change then you have right-wing climate change denier Ann Coulter on to discuss climate change as the only guest. What is going on? You are in the news business! If you don’t know how to talk about climate change you should have had scientists on who know what they are talking about. I know you are looking for ratings but we already have a FOX news channel.
Please be a responsible news organization again.
Sincerely,
Kevin Winningham

So if the audience does not think the stories are interesting (and they do tend to be loaded with argument and opinion and not news facts) how in the world will CNN make any profit. Lets fact it, this stuff is not science or news it is opinion and politics to control the masses with lots of new taxes. I’m not the biggest fan of CNN but hats off to them for approaching it as a business.

Shirley U. Jest 3 hours @ Billy Roosa: Yeah, and hats off to Hitler, who got the trains to run on time. ……
Seriously one hopes the tongue is securely fastened in the cheek….(:-)
—————————————————
Lets fact it, this stuff is not science or news it is opinion and politics to control the masses with lots of new taxes. I’m not the biggest fan of CNN but hats off to them for approaching it as a business. Billy Roosa

Sorry dude, but your so far out on the limb with no support it is almost comedic, almost. Mostly it is just sad though. If they had approached it as a business, they would have to provide a product or service, of which Mr Zucker seems either incapable or producing or understanding. Therefore he is nothing more than another ‘Corporate Lord’ thinking that money will fix everything, and he won’t have to do anything except act very stupid.

Only a corporation can operate without producing anything but fecal matter; to highjack a phrase from Heinlein “A corporation (Bureaucracy) is the only known entity with a thousand stomachs and no Brains.”

Featuring Plat Sajak’s and Anne Coulter’s views on climate change is as responsible as featuring a fundamentalist preacher’s stance on evolution. After this nonsense, CNN should emphasize on the air that the vast majority of scientists (neither Coulter nor Sajak are scientists, by the way) have reached the conclusion that climate change is occurring and that human agency plays a significant part in this.

Come on, CNN. Ann Coulter as a climate change expert? REALLY? Isn’t she that shrill woman who spews hate on Fox News from time to time?

First you brought Glenn Beck to prominence, and now you brought in Ann Coulter as the SOLE guest on a climate change report.

Cable and broadcast news is bad enough, but my God, CNN. You take the cake for over-hyped mediocrity. It’s hard to watch you circle the drain after seeing how sharp and relevant CNN was under Ted Turner.

It is amazing to me with Earth sea levels rising, polar caps disappearing, and millions of people being displaced by climate change, that CNN can base their climate opinion on one single, uninformed dolt, Coulter.

“Dumb” is the understatement of the year for CNN’s choice of climate representative.

I will say it till some of you rubes get it.If you believe in the hoax that is man made climate change you are wasting your breath.This country is doing fine.We are the only industrialized country to meet all carbon emission standards.If fact far surpass them.The problem is plain and simple CHINA and a few other countries like India.China will soon release more than all the rest of the world combined.And they have a message for you libs who are yelling at anyone who disagrees with you(but are not in fact the problem).That message is POUND SAND.Want to lessen the worlds carbon emissions…then there is only one way.An invasion of mainland China to save the world.Ummmmmm………You first (:

Padre it was talked about today in the world conference that if every country did what is needed to the n th degree yet China did nothing…..that carbon emissions would drop by 2%.I say again…All your words and deeds should be directed at China.Not conservatives.Not those in this country who agree, or disagree with you.It is meaningless.You must plan on stopping China.I say that short of invasion- you are wasting your time.Now what plans do you see as feasible for making that happen.Or will you waste your time yelling at those who disagree with you but in the end will effect nothing..